This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2014-09-03 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The accused-appellant would have this Court believe that he and AAA were lovers. This sweetheart theory, however, is bereft of any substantial proof. Other than accused-appellant's self-serving assertions and the testimonies of Sarmiento and Manalo, there were no other evidence presented to satisfactorily prove the alleged romantic relationship. The testimonies that they were seen together talking on the day of the incident or that they were walking hand in hand in going to Lupi do not give rise to the inference that they were sweethearts. We previously held that the sweetheart theory or sweetheart defense is an oft-abused justification that rashly derides the intelligence of this Court and sorely tests its patience.[27] For the Court to even consider giving credence to such defense, it must be proven by compelling evidence. The defense cannot just present testimonial evidence in support of the theory, as in the instant case. Independent proof is required such as tokens, mementos, and photographs. There is none presented here by the defense.[28] | |||||
|
2010-11-17 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The sweetheart defense is a much-abused defense that rashly derides the intelligence of the Court. Being an affirmative defense, the invocation of a love affair must be supported by convincing proof.[28] In this case, apart from his self-serving assertions, Cabanilla offered no sufficient and convincing evidence to substantiate his claim that they were lovers.[29] | |||||
|
2010-08-03 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| From a review of the transcript of stenographic notes, the Court finds AAA's testimony to bear the hallmarks of a credible witness. As appellant himself conceded, he could not advance any reason why AAA would impute such a serious charge against him.[22] Even BBB claimed that AAA and appellant had a good relation. | |||||
|
2009-04-24 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Q All right, and were you able to get out of the house eventually? A Yes sir.[18] (Underscoring supplied) The trial and appellate courts found AAA's straightforward, candid, and spontaneous testimony credible as it bears the hallmarks of a truthful witness, unflawed by inconsistencies or contradictions. The credibility of a rape victim is augmented where, as here, there is absolutely no evidence which even remotely suggests that she could have been actuated by ill-motive to testify against appellant.[19] | |||||
|
2008-10-08 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| We fully support these findings. As we emphasized in People v. Apostol,[35] the "sweetheart" defense is a much-abused defense. As an affirmative defense, the allegation of a love affair must be supported by convincing proof other than the self-serving assertions of the accused.[36] It cannot be given credence in the absence of evidence, such as notes, gifts, pictures, mementos or other tokens independently proving its existence; nor can it be given weight where no other witness was presented to testify that the accused and the complainant were indeed sweethearts.[37] The sweetheart defense is considered an uncommonly weak defense because its presence does not automatically negate the commission of rape. The gravamen of the crime of rape is sexual congress of a man with a woman without her consent. Hence, notwithstanding the existence of a romantic relationship, a woman cannot be forced to engage in sexual intercourse against her will. | |||||
|
2008-07-09 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| As to damages, the trial court correctly awarded P50,000.00 as moral damages, an award that rests on the jural foundation that the crime of rape necessarily brings with it shame, mental anguish, besmirched reputation, moral shock and social humiliation.[49] The award of exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 was correctly granted pursuant to the ruling in People v. Catubig[50] that the award of exemplary damages is justified pursuant to Article 2230 of the Civil Code.[51] Since the special aggravating circumstance of the use of a deadly weapon attended the commission of the rape, the offended party is entitled to exemplary damages. | |||||
|
2008-04-30 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| As to damages, the appellate court correctly awarded P50,000.00 as moral damages, an award that rests on the jural foundation that the crime of rape necessarily brings with it shame, mental anguish, besmirched reputation, moral shock and social humiliation.[31] In addition, exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 should be granted pursuant to the ruling in People v. Catubig[32] that the award of exemplary damages is justified pursuant to Article 2230 of the Civil Code.[33] Since the special aggravating circumstance of the use of a deadly weapon attended the commission of the rape, the offended party is entitled to exemplary damages. | |||||
|
2004-03-30 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| Since the use of a knife was not alleged in the information in Crim. Case No. 2523, accused-appellant may be held liable for simple rape only and accordingly sentenced to reclusion perpetua. His conviction and sentence in Crim. Case No. 2522 are affirmed. The civil indemnity of P75,000.00 awarded by the trial court must likewise be reduced to P50,000.00, consistent with jurisprudence.[33] | |||||
|
2003-11-11 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| In People v. Manalo,[115] this Court said that the sweetheart defense is a much-abused defense that rashly derides the intelligence of the Court and sorely tests its patience. Being an affirmative defense, the allegation of a love affair must be supported by convincing proof.[116] Since the appellant admitted to having had carnal knowledge of the complainant several times,[117] he bears the burden of proving his defense by clear and convincing evidence.[118] The appellant failed to discharge his burden. Visitacion adamantly denied that the appellant was her sweetheart.[119] Although the appellant presented witnesses to support his claim, the corroborating testimonies were neither credible nor convincing. Incredible was the story of Carolina Cobacha that in March 1991, she saw the appellant and Visitacion twice in very uncompromising situations. The testimony is even inconsistent with the appellant's testimony. By the appellant's account, he began courting Visitacion only in August 1991,[120] and had sexual intercourse with her the following month. Also, the nipa hut, where Carolina allegedly saw the appellant and Visitacion kiss each other, is located in the rice-field. Visitacion must have been so morally depraved as to allow herself to be seen in the arms of a man not her husband, in a conspicuous place, in a very rural community where everyone practically knew each other. The Court has taken judicial cognizance of the fact that in rural areas in this country, women by custom and tradition act with circumspection and prudence, and that great caution is observed so that their reputation remains untainted.[121] As to Adelina Ronquillo, her testimony, with respect to the love affair of her niece and the appellant, is hearsay. She testified that she learned of the illicit affair from Visitacion's parents and other relatives.[122] When evidence is based on what was supposedly told the witness, the same is without any evidentiary weight, being patently hearsay. Moreover, it has been shown that Adelina Ronquillo was a biased witness. She never denied that she sought from Visitacion the dropping of the charge against the appellant by offering money, which offer was flatly rejected by Visitacion. Hardly can her corroborative statements be accepted as gospel truth. Juanita Tayubong's testimony is, likewise, as unreliable, as she merely overheard the alleged illicit relationship of Visitacion with another man from Jovencia.[123] | |||||